Moody's Cuts Credit Ratings of 15 Big Banks

Morgan Stanley's headquarters in New York, November 25, 2008. On Thursday, June 21, 2012, Moody's Investors Service lowered the ratings of some of the world's largest banks, including Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. (Photo: Chester Higgins Jr. / The New York Times)Already grappling with weak profits and global economic turmoil, 15 major banks were hit with credit downgrades on Thursday that could do more damage to their bottom lines and further unsettle equity markets.

The credit agency, Moody’s Investors Service, which warned banks in February that a downgrade was possible, cut the credit scores of banks to new lows to reflect new risks that the industry has encountered since the financial crisis.

“The risks of this industry became apparent in the financial crisis,” said Robert Young, a managing director at Moody’s. “These new ratings capture those risks.”

Citigroup and Bank of America, which have struggled to fully recover from the financial crisis, were among the hardest hit. After the downgrades, the banks stand barely above the minimum for an investment grade rating, a level also known as junk and a sign of the difficult business conditions they face.

Executives at the banks argued on Thursday that the new ratings failed to reflect the safeguards and changes that they had put in place in recent years.

The cuts come at a time of tumult within the industry. Banks have struggled to improve their profits against the backdrop of the European sovereign debt crisis, a weak American economy and new regulations.

The downgrades may amplify their problems. With lower ratings, creditors could charge the banks more on their loans. Big clients may also move their business to less-risky companies, further crimping earnings.

As bank profits falter, consumers could also be affected. Companies often try to make up for lost revenue by passing costs on to customers.

In the face of new regulations, banks have raised fees and other sources of income to bolster their business.

Moody’s downgrades are part of a broad effort to make its analysis more rigorous. During the financial crisis, Moody’s and its rivals got a black eye for placing high ratings on mortgage bonds that later imploded.

Moody’s approach reflects its belief that large banks have weaknesses that could still hurt their creditors.

But some analysts feel that Moody’s is playing a game of catch-up. The latest actions, say critics, are backward-looking and do not consider the measures that banks have taken to strengthen themselves, including raising capital and getting out of certain risky businesses like proprietary trading.

“I feel that Moody’s action is five years too late,” said Gerard Cassidy, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets.

The threat of a downgrade has rippled through the markets for months. After Moody’s held out the prospect of a three-notch downgrade for Morgan Stanley in February, the bank’s shares dropped by more than 25 percent. Moody’s ended up cutting the firm’s rating by two levels.

Now, bank executives will try to convince their creditors and large customers that Moody’s has overreacted.

On Thursday, Citi said in a statement that Moody’s approach “fails to recognize Citi’s transformation over the past several years,” adding that “Citi strongly disagrees with Moody’s analysis of the banking industry and firmly believes its downgrade of Citi is arbitrary and completely unwarranted.”

Bank of America echoed such sentiments: “In addition to strengthening our governance and risk management, Bank of America ended the first quarter of 2012 with record capital ratios.”

Those capital positions, which are banks’ main buffer against losses, could be a point of strength across the industry. The lack of capital in the crisis left the financial system vulnerable, prompting the government to bail out many of the largest banks. Since then, they have increased their cushions. Today, Morgan Stanley’s capital is twice what it was in 2007.

“The banking system is safer today than any time in the last 30 years,” said Mr. Cassidy. “We have not seen capital levels like this since the 1930s.”

Even so, Moody’s remains concerned. In its report Thursday, the credit rating agency said it saw several weaknesses in the banks’ Wall Street operations, including their complexity and opacity. Moody’s highlighted a history of volatile profits and problems with risk management.

In its review, Moody’s mentioned the recent trading debacle at JPMorgan Chase. In May, the bank disclosed that a bet on financial instruments tied to corporate bonds had soured; those losses could reach $5 billion.

The agency also noted the industry’s continued dependence on short-term loans to finance their Wall Street operations. This type of credit dried up quickly in the crisis, forcing them to borrow from the government.

Some banking experts welcomed the downgrades, saying the credit rating agencies were finally beginning to reflect the risks within large banks. “These downgrades are good news,” said Anat R. Admati, a professor of finance and economics at Stanford University. “Right now, their balance sheets are very fragile.”

The downgrades could widen the divide in the banking system.

Some customers may simply choose to transfer their business from the lowest-rated banks. One beneficiary may be JPMorgan Chase. It was downgraded two notches but still has a higher rating than Goldman Sachs.

Moody’s may cut some of its ratings still further once a critical part of the financial overhaul comes into place. The Dodd-Frank legislation aims to give regulators the power to wind down large banks and inflict losses on banks’ creditors in the process. Once these powers take effect, Moody’s may downgrade the banks to reflect the fact that the government is less likely to bail out large banks.

Some analysts see the downgrades as only one step toward making the financial system safer. For one, the country does not have a coherent solution for dealing with large banks when they run into trouble, said Mike Mayo, an analyst with Crédit Agricole Securities.

“Will actions like this make the banking system safer? The jury’s still out on that,” said Mr. Mayo. “That’s unfortunate four years after the crisis.”

Moody's Cuts Credit Ratings of 15 Big Banks

Morgan Stanley's headquarters in New York, November 25, 2008. On Thursday, June 21, 2012, Moody's Investors Service lowered the ratings of some of the world's largest banks, including Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. (Photo: Chester Higgins Jr. / The New York Times)Already grappling with weak profits and global economic turmoil, 15 major banks were hit with credit downgrades on Thursday that could do more damage to their bottom lines and further unsettle equity markets.

The credit agency, Moody’s Investors Service, which warned banks in February that a downgrade was possible, cut the credit scores of banks to new lows to reflect new risks that the industry has encountered since the financial crisis.

“The risks of this industry became apparent in the financial crisis,” said Robert Young, a managing director at Moody’s. “These new ratings capture those risks.”

Citigroup and Bank of America, which have struggled to fully recover from the financial crisis, were among the hardest hit. After the downgrades, the banks stand barely above the minimum for an investment grade rating, a level also known as junk and a sign of the difficult business conditions they face.

Executives at the banks argued on Thursday that the new ratings failed to reflect the safeguards and changes that they had put in place in recent years.

The cuts come at a time of tumult within the industry. Banks have struggled to improve their profits against the backdrop of the European sovereign debt crisis, a weak American economy and new regulations.

The downgrades may amplify their problems. With lower ratings, creditors could charge the banks more on their loans. Big clients may also move their business to less-risky companies, further crimping earnings.

As bank profits falter, consumers could also be affected. Companies often try to make up for lost revenue by passing costs on to customers.

In the face of new regulations, banks have raised fees and other sources of income to bolster their business.

Moody’s downgrades are part of a broad effort to make its analysis more rigorous. During the financial crisis, Moody’s and its rivals got a black eye for placing high ratings on mortgage bonds that later imploded.

Moody’s approach reflects its belief that large banks have weaknesses that could still hurt their creditors.

But some analysts feel that Moody’s is playing a game of catch-up. The latest actions, say critics, are backward-looking and do not consider the measures that banks have taken to strengthen themselves, including raising capital and getting out of certain risky businesses like proprietary trading.

“I feel that Moody’s action is five years too late,” said Gerard Cassidy, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets.

The threat of a downgrade has rippled through the markets for months. After Moody’s held out the prospect of a three-notch downgrade for Morgan Stanley in February, the bank’s shares dropped by more than 25 percent. Moody’s ended up cutting the firm’s rating by two levels.

Now, bank executives will try to convince their creditors and large customers that Moody’s has overreacted.

On Thursday, Citi said in a statement that Moody’s approach “fails to recognize Citi’s transformation over the past several years,” adding that “Citi strongly disagrees with Moody’s analysis of the banking industry and firmly believes its downgrade of Citi is arbitrary and completely unwarranted.”

Bank of America echoed such sentiments: “In addition to strengthening our governance and risk management, Bank of America ended the first quarter of 2012 with record capital ratios.”

Those capital positions, which are banks’ main buffer against losses, could be a point of strength across the industry. The lack of capital in the crisis left the financial system vulnerable, prompting the government to bail out many of the largest banks. Since then, they have increased their cushions. Today, Morgan Stanley’s capital is twice what it was in 2007.

“The banking system is safer today than any time in the last 30 years,” said Mr. Cassidy. “We have not seen capital levels like this since the 1930s.”

Even so, Moody’s remains concerned. In its report Thursday, the credit rating agency said it saw several weaknesses in the banks’ Wall Street operations, including their complexity and opacity. Moody’s highlighted a history of volatile profits and problems with risk management.

In its review, Moody’s mentioned the recent trading debacle at JPMorgan Chase. In May, the bank disclosed that a bet on financial instruments tied to corporate bonds had soured; those losses could reach $5 billion.

The agency also noted the industry’s continued dependence on short-term loans to finance their Wall Street operations. This type of credit dried up quickly in the crisis, forcing them to borrow from the government.

Some banking experts welcomed the downgrades, saying the credit rating agencies were finally beginning to reflect the risks within large banks. “These downgrades are good news,” said Anat R. Admati, a professor of finance and economics at Stanford University. “Right now, their balance sheets are very fragile.”

The downgrades could widen the divide in the banking system.

Some customers may simply choose to transfer their business from the lowest-rated banks. One beneficiary may be JPMorgan Chase. It was downgraded two notches but still has a higher rating than Goldman Sachs.

Moody’s may cut some of its ratings still further once a critical part of the financial overhaul comes into place. The Dodd-Frank legislation aims to give regulators the power to wind down large banks and inflict losses on banks’ creditors in the process. Once these powers take effect, Moody’s may downgrade the banks to reflect the fact that the government is less likely to bail out large banks.

Some analysts see the downgrades as only one step toward making the financial system safer. For one, the country does not have a coherent solution for dealing with large banks when they run into trouble, said Mike Mayo, an analyst with Crédit Agricole Securities.

“Will actions like this make the banking system safer? The jury’s still out on that,” said Mr. Mayo. “That’s unfortunate four years after the crisis.”